This document has been archived.
NSB-99-45
APPROVED MINUTES
OPEN SESSION
351st MEETING
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
J. Paul Getty Center
Los Angeles, California
February 18-19, 1999
Members Present: Members Absent:
Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman Sanford D. Greenberg
Diana S. Natalicio, Vice Chair Robert M. Solow
John A. Armstrong
Pamela A. Ferguson
Mary K. Gaillard
M.R.C. Greenwood
Stanley V. Jaskolski
Anita K. Jones
Jane Lubchenco
Eve L. Menger
Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan
Vera S. Rubin
Bob H. Suzuki
Richard Tapia
Warren M. Washington
John A. White, Jr.
Rita R. Colwell, Director
NSB Consultants Present NSB Consultants Absent
George M. Langford Joseph A. Miller, Jr.
Robert C. Richardson
Maxine Savitz
Luis Sequeira
Chang-Lin Tien
____________
Note: The preliminary minutes of the 351st meeting were aprpoved by the
Board at the 353rd meeting, May 6, 1999.
The National Science Board (NSB) convened in Open Session at 9:05 a.m.
on Wednesday, February 17, 1999, with Dr. Eamon M. Kelly, Chairman of
the NSB, presiding (Agenda NSB-99-17). In accordance with the
Government in the Sunshine Act, this portion of the meeting was open to
the public.
AGENDA ITEM 1: Chairman's Report
NSB Committees
The Chairman established two Committees:
The 1999 Vannevar Bush Award Committee chaired by Dr. Greenwood, with
Drs. Jones, Tapia and Washington as members.
The International Issues in Science and Engineering Committee chaired by
Dr. Natalicio, with Drs. Ferguson, Gaillard, Jaskolski and Sequeira as
members.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Director's Report
a. Fiscal Year 2000 Budget
Dr. Rita Colwell, NSF Director, announced that the President's Fiscal
Year 2000 budget was delivered to Congress. A press conference to
present the budget was held February 1, organized by the White House
Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) and attended by Dr. Neal
Lane, Assistant to the President for Science & Technology and other
Federal agency heads. The budget includes a six percent increase for
NSF. One major item in the NSF budget is $146 million for a new
Information Technology initiative (IT2). Also included was a $50
million biocomplexity initiative and $7.5 million for a Graduate
Teaching Fellows Programs.
Also on February 1, the NSF Director held a press conference on the
NSF's budget request, and met representatives of the science and
engineering (S&E) research education communities, and with key
congressional staff members. The Director also spoke to the Association
of American Universities Council on Federal Relations, and a group of
executives from S&E societies and associations. The overall reaction to
the budget is good, and NSF continues to make the case for the national
importance of the new IT2 initiative.
b. Congressional Hearings
The Director announced that hearings on the budget proposal will begin
on March 4, with testimony before the House Appropriation Subcommittee,
on March 16, before the House Basic Research Subcommittee, and on March
23 before the Senate VA, HUD and Independent Agencies Committee. In
late February Dr. Bordogna will represent NSF at a Congressional hearing
on the Interagency National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program. Other
anticipated hearings will involve IT2, the Antarctic Program, and the
Freedom of Information data release issue.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Framework for Revising the NSF Strategic Plan
Dr. Colwell reminded members that the original NSF Strategic Plan NSF in
a Changing World (NSF-95-24) was approved in 1994, and the Foundation's
strategic plan for 1997-2003 under the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) was approved in 1997. The GPRA strategic plan is due
for revision by March 2000. The revised plan will maintain the themes
of the 1994 publication, and will capture NSF's expanded roles and
responsibilities over the past four years, as well as addressing future
expansion. She said a senior management group at NSF has been formed to
draft the revisions, and the Board will be involved from the early
stages.
Dr. Colwell focused on the need for an expanded budget for basic
research. She noted that there would be an NSF working team with senior
management, initiated at the Director's Policy Group retreat on March
1-2, to review the GPRA strategy. An external review must also be a
part of the review in 2000. The Director reviewed the schedule and
stated that Board members would be involved in the updating process from
the beginning.
Board Discussion
Dr. Kelly noted the importance of using the revised strategic plan to
communicate to the public and to other officials in the government about
what NSF does.
Dr. Colwell said that in order to think about future NSF priorities the
Assistant Directors have been asked to present descriptions of
initiatives that are limited by current budget constraints. These
initiatives will be presented to the Board during the March discussion
of long range planning.
Dr. Langford agreed that there is a need to expand the NSF budget
because the award size is not large enough to support the kind of
research for which NSF is currently noted. Dr. Menger suggested that
the human resource aspects of increased funding should be kept in mind.
Dr. Tapia noted that sometimes initiatives like KDI (Knowledge and
Distributed Intelligence) elicit large numbers of proposals, while
funding is sufficient only for a small number of awards. When this
happens, there is a negative impact on perceptions of NSF.
Dr. Suzuki commented that NSF is already developing partnerships with
other agencies and non-profit foundations and asked how members could
provide input on the GPRA revision to staff. The Director and Chair
stated that members would be notified as to the contact person and the
means for communicating ideas. Dr. Colwell reiterated the importance on
gathering information on what research cannot be funded by the NSF
constrained budget and reminded members that it is also important to
obtain the backing of the science and engineering communities to support
an increased budget.
Dr. Washington asked the Director to describe discussions with Congress
regarding an increased budget. She answered that discussions have
focused on what NSF and the nation should be doing in the 21st century.
There seems to be strong support for science, math and engineering
education. She also noted that there are some misconceptions that NSF
cannot handle big projects. Using the South Pole Station redevelopment
and Gemini telescopes as examples, she stated that this is not the case.
Congress is also interested in knowing that NSF takes prioritization
seriously. Several members commented that NSF may be positioned to seek
other funding to leverage expansion of science and education funding.
The Director noted that she and Dr. Kelly were exploring those
possibilities.
The Board unanimously approved the process for revising the NSF
Strategic Plan described by the NSF Director
Presentation: A Demographic Perspective on our Nation's Future
The National Science Board heard a presentation entitled "A Demographic
Perspective on our Nation's Future" by Dr. Peter A. Morrison of the RAND
Corporation. Dr. Morrison discussed the global context of decreasing
numbers of births per family, lower fertility rates leading to higher
percentages of adults in the population, and increased numbers of women
in the workforce. Dr. Morrison then provided detailed perspectives in
four major areas for the U.S.: (1) the maturing age distribution; (2)
impending generation gaps; (3) disparities tied to education; and (4)
the complex ethnic mosaic. Dr. Morrison recommended attention to three
major policy challenges: Reducing structural impediments to individual
opportunities (i.e. providing computers in households and schools);
nurturing human capital for the nation's science enterprise; and
tempering competing interests in the context of ethnic diversity.
AGENDA ITEM 4: NSB Report on Achievement in Science and Mathematics
Education
Dr. Mary K. Gaillard, Chairman, EHR Task Force on Mathematics and
Science Achievement led a brief discussion of the draft report,
Preparing Our Children: Math and Science Education in the National
Interest Interest (NSB/TIMSS 98-21, fourth revised, Board Book Tab C),
focused on the need for an executive summary that wraps some of the more
powerful text around the recommendations. Several Board members urged
release of the report as soon as possible, preferably with a press event
followed by publication of op-ed pieces. As part of a unanimous vote of
approval, the Board authorized Dr. Gaillard, the TIMSS Task Force Chair,
and Dr. Suzuki, the Education & Human Resources (EHR) Committee Chair,
to approve the final revisions in preparation for a release. Issuing
both a paper and an electronic version available at the NSB web site was
recommended. The NSB Chairman expressed the hope that the report would
be issued before the end of February 1999.
AGENDA ITEM 5: Other Business
There was no other business and the Chairman called for the next agenda
item.
AGENDA ITEM 7: Symposium on Environmental Research, Education and
Assessment
The Symposium on Environmental Research, Education and Assessment was
opened by
Dr. Eamon Kelly, Chair, National Science Board. Welcoming remarks were
provided by Mr. Barry Munitz, President, The Getty Center and Dr. Rita
Colwell, Director, National Science Foundation.
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NSB member and Chair of the NSB Task Force on the
Environment, gave an overview of the symposium. Members of the Board
moderated.
The keynote address was presented by Dr. Kathryn Sullivan of the
Columbus, Ohio, Center of Science and Industry. Dr. Sullivan emphasized
that we need a common understanding of key issues and that assessments
are required to facilitate communication among scientists, decision
makers, and individuals. She exhorted NSF to look creatively at this
issue. Dr. Sullivan also suggested that NSF advance fresh approaches to
education, emphasizing lifelong learning via community education in
addition to the traditional support for schooling.
The session entitled Emerging Interdisciplinary Opportunities featured
Drs. Pamela Matson (Stanford University), David Schimel (National Center
for Atmospheric Research), Simon Levin (Princeton University), and Jerry
Melillo (The Ecosystems Center, Woods Hole, MA) discussing agricultural
landscapes, ecosystems and Earth's climate system, complexity and
modeling, and global change lessons. These speakers pointed out serious
unmet needs for interdisciplinary research support and discussed some of
the challenges faced by academic investigators in approaching such
research. One of the messages from this session was that very
influential work is emerging from groups of scientists working at the
borders of their disciplinary expertise.
At 6:02 p.m. the Open Session was recessed.
* * * *
Thursday, February 18, 1999
The Open Session was reconvened at 8:57 a.m. by the Chairman of the
National Science Board, Dr. Eamon M. Kelly. The Symposium on
Environmental Research, Education and Assessment continued.
The first panel, New Tools and Alliances, featured Drs. Christopher
Somerville (The Carnegie Institute) and Catherine Gautier (University of
California Santa Barbara). Dr. Somerville discussed the future as
changed by biotechnology, presenting many examples where biotechnology
approaches are already improving agricultural and industrial practices
and enhancing environmental quality. Dr. Gautier discussed information
technology, in particular as related to systems approaches, remote and
in-situ sensing, and data from models. Dr. Gautier recommended that the
environmental community continue to develop strong partnerships with the
information technology community.
The Human Dimensions and New Ways of Thinking session included talks by
Drs. Carole Crumley (University of North Carolina Chapel Hill), Beverly
Wright (Xavier University), and Theresa Satterfield (Decision Research,
Inc.). In this session the speakers identified significant societal
issues related to the environment, and the research that could be
applied to improve our understanding of them. Dr. Crumley spoke on human
behavior, Dr. Wright on equity and social justice, and Dr. Satterfield
on public values. One of the take-home messages was that there is a
"two-cultures" problem with the social vs. biophysical sciences that
should be recognized and addressed early on in interdisciplinary
research endeavors.
The fourth session was entitled From Reaction to Proaction and featured
talks by Dr. William Clark (Harvard University), Dr. Terry Yates
(University of New Mexico) and Ambassador Richard Benedick (Battelle
Pacific Northwest Laboratory). All three speakers focused on how
credible scientific research can be used to improve the basis for
decision making. Dr. Clark discussed assessments in general, emphasizing
that they are as much process as product. He articulated several areas
in which NSF could support---or continue to support--- assessment
research. Dr. Yates discussed a specific example at the intersection of
ecology and human disease, emphasizing the enormous importance of
long-term, interdisciplinary research in developing a useful predictive
understanding of the Hantavirus and related diseases. Dr. Yates also
pointed out the key significance of maintenance of data sets, samples,
and specimens in furthering the research. Ambassador Benedick discussed
examples of assessments in his experience, and spoke about a need for
new institutional structures and processes to complement existing NSF
programs in the environment area. Ambassador Benedick recommended an
entity that would be isolated from political pressure but informed by
stakeholder concerns and support peer-reviewed environmental research.
The final session, Enabling Partnerships, included talks by Drs. Berrien
Moore (University of New Hampshire), Rosina Bierbaum (Office of Science
and Technology Policy), and Geoff Heal (Columbia University). These
speakers discussed commonalities and distinctions among international
partnerships, federal partnerships, and cross-disciplinary partnerships.
The issues they discussed included new approaches for international
funding and funding of large-scale or long-term national efforts, new
directions for the environmental research establishment, and environment
viewed as infrastructure.
NONAGENDA ITEM: Statement on Scientific Research Data Access
The Board approved a statement on scientific research data access under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), urging repeal of recent
legislation that relies on FOIA to compel premature access to research
data (NSB-99-24, attached at Appendix A). There was no other business
and the meeting adjourned at 5:13 p.m.
Susan E. Fannoney
Staff Assistant
Attachment:
Appendix A: NSB-99-24
7
OS-2:99: